#1 Real Estate Investing Mistake Of 2005

By Jeanette Joy Fisher

Over the past few years, real estate investors, hungry for break-even or positive cash flow rental properties, purchased income properties out of state. California investors bought houses in Florida, Texas, and Oklahoma. Florida investors purchased houses in Louisiana. Texas investors purchased in Las Vegas. Many of these investors made millions of dollars because of the appreciation in hot markets.

On the other hand, in 2005, some beginning investors lost their hard-earned investment capital or only made a meager profit because

they failed to do their homework on the out-of-state area’s real estate market and customs

.

If you ‘re thinking about buying investment properties in a different state than you’re accustomed to, beware of these five surprises.

Surprise # 1 – ‘These (extra) costs are the norm in this state!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCIO4jWd-vg[/youtube]

Besides extra closing costs like pricey surveys, common in Florida but rare in California, other surprise costs included higher transfer fees and taxes. Property taxes in Florida cost much more for investors in Florida than in California. On the other side of the country, out-of-state investors were shocked by California’s state tax held in escrow: 3.8% of the property’s SALES price, no matter the actual profit made. In other words, an investor who made a quick profit of $20,000 on a fast flip could have more than the profit held until the next year’s income tax filing.

Surprise # 2 – ‘You can’t lease this property!

New home developers and many Homeowners’ Associations (HOA)s prohibit property owners from leasing their properties. Some of these restrictions got passed, without the investor being notified, during the property purchase phase. You must read the fine print to see if any clauses prevent the rental of the property. Home builders, to keep the value of the neighborhood up, added restrictions requiring the purchaser to occupy the home as a primary or secondary residence.

Surprise # 3 – ‘This house will only rent for $750 per month, not $1200!

This was one of the top mistakes made in 2005. Large real estate investing groups, selling out-of-state properties to local investors, inflated the rental income. Because so many houses were purchased in a limited area by investors, a rental glut lowered the expected income. This created hardships for investors who suddenly had to pay out hundreds of dollars a month instead of reaping promised profits.

Surprise # 4 – ‘You can’t sell this house, now!

Some investors who couldn’t rent the out-of-state property decided to sell because the values did rise significantly while the house was built or during the purchase time. However, many investors were stunned when they were told they couldn’t sell the property within the first year after purchase. Restrictions prohibiting real estate investors from quick-turning their properties is a trend that is growing increasingly popular with some developers.

Surprise # 5 – ‘Houses don’t appreciate 30% per year here!

Perhaps you’ve attended or been invited to a high-power investment seminar that promotes out-of-state real estate investing. Some of these ‘investor clubs’ really are promoters who receive kick-backs in real estate commissions, property management fees, mortgage loan fees, and even fire insurance premiums. They tell stories of huge appreciation gains, which are probably true. However, not all areas enjoy significant appreciation–year after year.

Don’t make the costly mistake of not fully researching the complete market customs and restrictions in the area where you’re thinking about investing. If you can’t afford to go check out the area in person, choose another area that you can visit.

Copyright 2006 Jeanette J. Fisher

About the Author:

Jeanette Fisher

offers FREE “How to Start Real Estate Investing Teleseminar,” free ebook, “The Truth about Making Money Flipping Houses”

doghousetodollhouse.com

Source:

isnare.com

Permanent Link:

isnare.com/?aid=28839&ca=Real+Estate

Florida man charged with stealing Wi-Fi

Update since publication

This article mentions that Wi-Fi stands for “Wireless Fidelity”, although this is disputed.

Thursday, July 7, 2005

A Florida man is being charged with 3rd degree felony for logging into a private Wi-Fi (Wireless Fidelity) Internet access point without permission. Benjamin Smith III, 41, is set for a pre-trial hearing this month in the first case of its kind in the United States.

This kind of activity occurs frequently, but often goes undetected by the owners of these wireless access points (WAPs). Unauthorized users range from casual Web browsers, to users sending e-mails, to users involved in pornography or even illegal endeavours.

According to Richard Dinon, owner of the WAP Smith allegedly broke into, Smith was using a laptop in an automobile while parked outside Dinon’s residence.

There are many steps an owner of one of these access points can take to secure them from outside users. Dinon reportedly knew how to take these steps, but had not bothered because his “neighbors are older.”

Posted in Uncategorized

Legislators in US states call for the impeachment of President Bush

Tuesday, May 2, 2006

Legislators in three states have introduced resolutions calling for the impeachment of U.S. President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Learn more about

US state legislators Karen Yarbrough of Illinois, Paul Koretz of California, and David Zuckerman of Vermont have each introduced resolutions to begin impeachment proceedings. Yarbrough and Koretz are Democrats, and Zuckerman is a member of the Vermont Progressive Party.

Yarbrough’s resolution charges Bush with directing the National Security Agency to perform surveillance without a warrant in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; violating the torture conventions of the Geneva Convention, and “leaking classified national secrets to further an agenda.” Koretz’ similar resolution also calls for Cheney to be impeached.

Zuckerman introduced a resolution last Tuesday in the Vermont House of Representatives that asks Congress to “initiate impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush.” The resolution says “George W. Bush has committed high crimes and misdemeanors as he has repeatedly and intentionally violated the United States Constitution and other laws of the United States.” Twelve Vermont state representatives (Democrats, Progressives, 1 Independent) have endorsed the resolution.

The Illinois resolution invokes Section 603 of Jefferson’s Rules for the national House and Senate, which allows for the introduction of impeachment charges “by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State or territory.” Section 604 also states that an impeachment charge brought by any means would be a privileged motion, superseding most other business in the U.S. House of Representatives.

As of April 30, the Illinois resolution has been referred to the Rules Committee and has been sponsored by 17 representatives including Yarbrough.

In response to the Vermont resolution, the state’s Republican Party Chairman James Barnett said, “If this is the best they can do at this late hour of the legislative session, then it’s time to close down shop and go home for the summer so they can explain to their constituents that they didn’t reform health care because they were too busy trying to impeach the president.”

According to a CBS poll, the President’s public approval rating has steadily declined, and is so far at an all time low of 33%.

Posted in Uncategorized

Pennsylvania cop on trial for allegedly murdering girlfriend’s estranged husband

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

The trial began today for a Pennsylvania state trooper accused of killing his girlfriend’s estranged husband.

Kevin Foley, 43, is accused of cutting the throat of John Yelenic, a dentist who was in the final stages of finalizing a divorce from his wife, Michele. According to prosecutors, Foley “loathed Dr. Yelenic” so much that he asked another fellow trooper to help him commit the alleged murder, which occurred in Yelenic’s Blairsville home.

Deputy Attorney General Anthony Krastek told an Indiana County jury that Foley also prayed Yelenic would die, and spread false rumors that Yelenic molested his adopted son.

“You will see Kevin Foley has the motive, the opportunity and the ability to commit this crime, almost to the exclusion of anybody else,” Krastek said.

Foley’s defense attorney, Jeffrey Monzo, said during opening statements that DNA evidence was not conclusive. Monzo admitted to the jury that Foley did not like Yelenic, but said that does not mean he murdered him.

“Kevin Foley is innocent,” he said.

Prosecutors said they could call as many as 70 witnesses to try and prove Foley wanted Yelenic to die. The trial, at the Indiana County Courthouse, is expected to last about three weeks.

Foley, who is on unpaid suspension from the Pennsylvania State Police, is charged with criminal homicide. The jury has the option of convicting him of first-degree murder, which could put Foley in prison for life without parole, or of a lesser degree charge, like manslaughter.

John Yelenic was found dead in his home on April 13, 2006, one day before he was planning on signing his divorce papers. Prosecutors said Foley killed Yelenic after going to the dentist’s house to confront him over the terms of the divorce. Prosecutors claim Foley slashed Yelenic several times with a knife and pushed his head through a small window, causing a further gash on his neck. Yelenic bled to death.

Foley had been living with Michele Yelenic for two years at the time of the alleged homicide. Krastek said Michele also helped perpetuate rumors that Dr. Yelenic molested their son. John and Michele Yelenic had been separated in 2002. Michele Yelenic stood to collect Dr. Yelenic’s estate and a $1 million life insurance policy, and could lose about $2,500 a month in support if the divorce was finalized, a Pennsylvania grand jury previously determined.

Michele Yelenic is expected to testify that Foley was home with her when the alleged murder occurred. Krastek told the jury DNA under Yelenic’s fingerprints will ultimately link him to the murder, as will bloody shoe prints found at the crime scene that match athletic shoes Foley is known to wear.

Monzo also said authorities have failed to investigate several other suspects, including Yelenic’s neighbor. Monzo said Yelenic was on very friendly terms with the neighbor’s wife, which could have given him a motive to commit the murder.

Prior to the trial, Foley’s defense attorneys unsuccessfully sought a change of venue because an overwhelming majority of the jury pool was familiar with the allegations. The change was denied when jurors insisted they had not formed an opinion about the charges.

Posted in Uncategorized

Driving Lessons Wirral From Drive With Jeansom.Co.Uk

Driving Lessons Wirral from DriveWithJeansom.co.uk

by

Gareth Hoyle1

Learning to drive is a big decision, but it is one that you can make at any age. Many of us assume that you can only learn when you are young and the decision to learn to drive, in your 30’s for example is a much harder one. There is no reason for this at all and is simply our own belief that we have become too old to learn to drive but this is simply not true.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3YOCDDOIPQ[/youtube]

The fact of the matter is you can learn to drive at any age and it is simply a case of finding an instructor that you are happy and comfortable with. It can be nerve wracking when you first get behind a wheel, as you worry about whether you are going to be good enough or not. Don’t worry though. Remember that your instructor as taught many people to drive all with different skill levels when they start of so you being a novice will not faze them in the slightest. It is a good idea to have one lesson with an instructor before you commit to lessons in bulk. You will find it much easier to learn to drive if you are happy and confident with your instructor. You need to be relaxed and feel at ease, so make sure you get his vibe from the person teaching you to drive before you commit to any lessons in bulk. Remember that you need your provisional license before you can get started with any instructor so sign up for this before you get started. The sign up process is simple and you don’t need to pass any test to do this. The actual process is much like signing up for a passport, you need to send off a set off forms and some photos. When it comes to learning to drive what you also need to bear in mind is the type of car you want to learn. Different instructors have different vehicle options so if this is something important to you then it is worth checking out before you sign up to an instructor. DriveWithJeanSOM.co.uk

offers the best and most professional

driving lessons Wirral

, tailored to your individual needs with different courses from the

driving school Wirral

.

Article Source:

ArticleRich.com

Wikinews interviews Joe Schriner, Independent U.S. presidential candidate

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Journalist, counselor, painter, and US 2012 Presidential candidate Joe Schriner of Cleveland, Ohio took some time to discuss his campaign with Wikinews in an interview.

Schriner previously ran for president in 2000, 2004, and 2008, but failed to gain much traction in the races. He announced his candidacy for the 2012 race immediately following the 2008 election. Schriner refers to himself as the “Average Joe” candidate, and advocates a pro-life and pro-environmentalist platform. He has been the subject of numerous newspaper articles, and has published public policy papers exploring solutions to American issues.

Wikinews reporter William Saturn? talks with Schriner and discusses his campaign.

Posted in Uncategorized

U.S. President Obama’s farewell address focuses on accomplishment

Thursday, January 12, 2017

United States President Barack Obama gave his official farewell address on Tuesday night from McCormick Place in Chicago, reflecting on personal and national accomplishments. This is expected to be his last major speech before officially handing the reins to president-elect Donald Trump on January 20.

“Its why GIs gave their lives at Omaha Beach and Iwo Jima; Iraq and Afghanistan – and why men and women from Selma to Stonewall were prepared to give theirs as well.”

Obama’s speech was wide-ranging. He thanked his family and the nation, spoke of the need for unity, noted the country’s accomplishments and need for improvement in areas like education and civil rights, and spoke about the need for pride in U.S. accomplishments, citing milestones of U.S. history and of his presidency specifically. “It’s why GIs gave their lives at Omaha Beach and Iwo Jima; Iraq and Afghanistan – and why men and women from Selma to Stonewall were prepared to give theirs as well.”

The president also addressed his country’s troubled history with race and racism, an issue many black citizens feel he has avoided. Despite this, Chauncy Devega of Salon described the president as “a role model of calm, cool reflective black masculinity: a man utterly at home in his own skin.” Obama described the concept of a post-racial U.S. “unrealistic” and particularly cited the need for reform in education and the criminal justice system and greater acceptance of scientific evidence, particularly evidence supporting action to counteract climate change.

However, publications including The Washington Post and Salon have given particular focus to another aspect of the president’s address: the country’s increasing political tensions and controversies involving access to news and information, both accurate and inaccurate. “We become so secure and our bubbles,” said Obama, “that we start accepting only information, whether it’s true or not, that fits our opinions instead of basing our opinions on the evidence that is out there,” calling this trend “a third threat to our democracy.”

The Washington Post characterized Obama’s comment, “If every economic issue is framed as a struggle between a hard-working white middle class and an undeserving minority, then workers of all shades will be left fighting for scraps while the wealthy withdraw further into their private enclaves,” as a “not-so-subtle jab” at the campaign tactics of President-elect Donald Trump. The Telegraph describes Obama’s warnings about the need to protect democracy as “a thinly veiled slight to the divisive rhetoric of Donald Trump’s election campaign, which included attacks on Muslims, the disabled, women and immigrants.” The president went on to call on the public to “reject the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest or to enfeeble the sacred ties that make us one America. We weaken those ties when we allow our political dialogue to become so corrosive […] We weaken those ties when we define some of us as more American than others when we write off the whole system as inevitably corrupt and when we sit back and blame the leaders we elect without examining our own role in electing them. It falls to each of us to be those anxious, jealous guardians of our democracy.”

Despite this, when the mention of Donald Trump brought boos from the crowd, Obama reiterated the importance of the long history of peaceful transfers of power from one president to the next: “No no no no no. […] I committed to President-elect Trump that my administration would ensure the smoothest possible transition, just as President Bush did for me.” However, this was not unaccompanied by a call to action. Near the end of the speech, he insisted citizens dissatisfied with elected officials should “lace up your shoes, grab a clipboard, get some signatures and run for office yourself.”

Overall, the departing president’s speech focused on accomplishment, echoing the “Yes we can” slogan from his 2008 campaign: “If I have told you eight years ago, that America would reverse a great recession, reboot our auto industry, and unleash the longest stretch of job creation in our history. If I had told you, that we would open up a new chapter with the Cuban people, shut down Iran’s nuclear weapons program without firing a shot, take out the mastermind of 9/11[…] If I had told you that we would win a marriage equality and secure the right to health insurance for another twenty million of our fellow citizens. If I had told you all that, you might have said our sights were set a little too high. But that’s what we did.”

But when the crowd began shouting “Four more years! Four more years!” Obama, with a small laugh, answered, “I can’t do that.”

Posted in Uncategorized

Electronic voting disputed in France

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

In France, voting has traditionally been a low-tech experience: voters isolate themselves in a booth, put a pre-printed sheet of paper indicating their candidate of choice into an envelope. After officials verify the voter’s identity, the voter drops the envelope into the ballot box and signs the voting roll. French electoral law rather strictly codifies the proceedings. Since 1988, ballot boxes must be transparent so that voters and observers can witness that no envelopes are present at the start of the vote and that no envelopes are added except those of the duly counted and authorized voters. Candidates can send representatives to witness every part of the process. In the evening, votes are counted by volunteers under heavy supervision, following specific procedures.

In the past, voting machines, though authorized by law, were scarce. But this year, during presidential elections (the first round was April 22, the second is on May 6), the country is shaken by controversy about the machines intended to count about 1.5 million votes.

As in the United States, there is a group of academic computer scientists that oppose voting machines. They argue that voting machines replace a public, easily understandable counting process, where large-scale fraud would entail large-scale corruption, by an opaque process where votes are counted by machines that voters have to blindly trust. Voting machines have to be approved by the Ministry of the Interior, but this approval is based on confidential reports by private companies. Opponents to the machines point out that the Ministry was long held by Nicolas Sarkozy, who happens to be the leading candidate. Opponents also list a number of weaknesses and discrepancies that have occurred in other countries using voting machines.

All main political parties except UMP, Mr Sarkozy’s ruling party, oppose the voting machines. Some citizens have filed for court injunctions against the voting machines. Opponents have given detailed instructions that voting witnesses should check whether the machines correspond exactly to an approved type, including software versions, and fulfill all legal conditions. In a sign of the frenzy over the issue, on April 12 the Ministry of the Interior issued a last-minute authorization for a specific model (hardware, firmware). The stakes are high: votes on unapproved machines should be canceled by the Constitutional Council for the official count.

The opposition has crystallized on the Paris suburb of Issy-les-Moulineaux. Issy’s mayor, André Santini is a well-known technophile; his city organizes a “World E-Gov Forum”. Here too, last minute fixes are at work. The machines delivered to the city are of a yet-to-be-approved type. The manufacturer, the American company ES&S voting systems, is now delivering older 2005 machines. Le Monde reports that other municipalities have already replaced their recent machines by an older, approved, model.

Proponents of the machines, such as the French company France Élection, claim they are being defamed and dispute the competence of their critics. Elected officials supporting the machines claim the machines save on paper, time, and the need to find volunteers to count votes.

Posted in Uncategorized